Comparative advantages
Compare scenes. In The Hague, 15 justices of the International Court of Justice solemnly order Israel to dismantle the security fence it is building to separate Israelis from Palestinians. In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, the Palestinians, prevented from killing Israelis by a barrier that exists now, are busy murdering one another in factional warfare of gunfire, arson, and kidnappings. And in Ramallah on the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is in turmoil yet again over the corrupt and incompetent leadership of the terrorist Yasser Arafat, one of whose chief critics emerged from a television interview to be shot twice in the leg.
Violence is the syntax of debate among Palestinians, as it has been the syntax of negotiation with Israel. It escalated in the first place not as the result of Israeli aggression but because of Israeli willingness four years ago at Camp David to yield control of 95 percent of the occupied lands as Israel had previously yielded all of the Sinai to Egypt. Even the United Nations Mideast envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, a longtime supporter of Arafat, publicly attacked the PA recently for its failure to end violence, combat terrorism, and institute reforms that ordinary Palestinians have been demanding for years.
The flat-Earth assumption of the justices in The Hague, reinforced by a U.N. General Assembly vote on July 20--instigated in part by France--is that all Palestinians are ready to live in peace with the State of Israel and are thwarted only by Israel's intransigence. The General Assembly vote, under European pressure, did add a couple of ambiguous paragraphs about the duty of restraint on all sides, but in The Hague's judgment there was little mention of terrorism. It was a ruling taken in a practical and moral vacuum. The court washed its hands of the sure consequence: If Israel complied, scores more Israelis would be blown up by suicide bombings. Ultimately, the court placed the victims of terrorism on trial instead of the terrorists--a move emblematic of the hypocrisy of international diplomacy, remorseless in the face of the murder of Israelis yet highly agitated over a fence aimed at saving lives--just because it ostensibly impinges a little on land in the disputed West Bank.
In truth, the decision was preordained by politics--handed down, it should be noted, by a court composed in part of justices with only a nodding acquaintance with the rule of law and democracy. The head of the court, a Chinese justice, represents a country that invaded Tibet and has a questionable human-rights record. Some of the court's members come from foreign enemies of Israel, e.g., Egypt. The one dissenting American judge on the court nailed the key legal point: "To reach that conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without . . . seeking to ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel's legitimate right to self-defense, military necessity, and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel . . . cannot be justified as a matter of law."
advertisement
